Search This Blog

Each and every dispute in respect of every Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe member with non schedule caste or non schedule tribe member, cannot be brought under the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said provision is attracted only if mens rea for commission of the offence under the said Act exists. In the present case, the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not attracted and therefore, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 18 of the Act.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, SHO Police Station, Yellanuru, Anantapur Dist,
rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.... Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Seena Kumar

Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1160 OF 2014

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
Earlier to the present report, the petitioner gave a report to the police which
reads as follows:- The marriage of the petitioner's daughter was performed on 3-
11-2012. There is a custom in the village, according to which, the persons
belonging to Madiga community used to beat the drums at the time of marriage on
receiving some amount from the bride's parents. The petitioner purchased four
drums and gave them to Madiga people for the purpose of beating them at the time
of marriage of her daughter and she also gave some amount to them. But, the
Madiga people namely (1) Gangaraju, (2) Madiga Peddanna, (3) Madiga Venkatappa
and (4) Madiga Chinna Naganna, did not beat the drums as per the custom.
According to the petitioner, they insulted her family members at the time of her
daughter's marriage at the instance of their opponents in the village.
According to the petitioner, her relatives gave warning to Madiga people not to
beat drums at the time of the marriage of petitioner's daughter and if they do
so, they would be sent out of the village and on that there was a dispute
between the petitioner's family and her opponents in the village.
The version of the petitioner is that owing to the said dispute, the following
persons namely (1) Akuthota Obula Reddy, (2) Matka Sriramam Jalaja Reddy, (3)
Pandirlapalli Bramhananda Reddy, (4) Peddi Ramam Jalaja Reddy, (5) Prasada
Reddy, (6) Prabhakara Reddy, (7) Obula Reddy and (8) Kuruba Sathya, trespassed
into their house while the petitioner's husband was having meal and assaulted
him and also \threw boulders at him, due to which, he received a bleeding injury
on his leg. Basing on the report, the police registered a case in Crime No.105
of 2013 of Yellanur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections,
147, 148, 323, 427, 506 and 149 of I.P.C., and the said case is now pending.
The version of the petitioner is that as she lodged a report against the
aforesaid persons, they set up the de facto complainant in the present case and
got filed the report with false allegations.
As per the report in the present case, on 6-12-2013 while the de facto
complainant and others were beating drums in connection with another marriage in
the village, the petitioner and her husband obstructed them and took away the
drums from their hands on the ground that they did not beat the drums at the
marriage of their daughter and also stating that the drums were purchased by the
husband of the petitioner and so saying, she took away the drums into her house.
On the next day morning the de facto complainant and others went to the house of
the petitioner and asked her to return the drums, but she refused to return them
on the ground that they did not beat the drums at the marriage of their daughter
as per the custom. Basing on the aforesaid allegations, a case in Crime No.106
of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered in Yellanur Police Station.
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime No.106 of 2013.
Though it is mentioned in the First Information Report that the petitioner
abused the de facto complainant and others in their caste name, the said
utterances were not made with a view to insult or humiliate the de facto
complainant and others in a place within public view. The essential ingredient
of the offence is, causing intentional insult or intimidation, which is absent
in the present case. The version of the petitioner is that she was obviously
implicated in the instant case at the instance of their opponents by setting up
the de facto complainant for the purpose of lodging the First Information Report
in the present case is quite probable. More over the entire allegations
mentioned in the First Information Report and also in the earlier First
Information Report in Crime No.105 of 2013 obviously indicate that a dispute
arose between the petitioner and de facto complainant and his men on the issue
that the de facto complainant and his men even after taking money from the
petitioner, failed to beat the drums as per the custom in the village in
connection with the marriage of the petitioner's daughter. Though Section 18 of
the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 enacts a bar against granting anticipatory bail if an
offence is committed under any of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, in the
instant case, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed the offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Each and every dispute in respectof every Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe member with non schedule caste or non schedule tribe member, cannot be brought under the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) ofthe Act. The said provision is attracted only if mens rea for commission of theoffence under the said Act exists. In the present case, the ingredients ofSection 3(1)(x) of the Act are not attracted and therefore, the petitioner canbe granted anticipatory bail notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 18 ofthe Act.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner is therefore,
directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Yellanur Police Station,
Anantapur District, within 30 days from today and thereafter she shall be
released on bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum each to the
satisfaction of the said Station House Officer.
_________________
R.KANTHA RAO,J
Date: 11-02-2014

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …